> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Williams > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 1:02 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: S&L failures > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > free market would solve everything) loosened the regulations on S&Ls as > much > > as possible, > > ROTFLMAO! As much as possible. Hahahaha!
As much as the Reagan administration could squeeze through by subverting the law, my apologies for not being specific, but I thought I was stating what was well known. > > If you are allowed to cook the books, (like companies > > did when Reagan told them it was OK to raid the pension funds of their > > employees using funny math to justify the theft), > > Another example of fine government regulation! I see why you have such > faith in government control. Ah, the point is that after 50 years of successful government control, it was virtually eliminated, then bad things happened. Your point is that because, technically, the government still regulated, bad things happened. Let me ask again, do you think it is wrong for governments to require that companies follow prudent accounting practices when managing pension plans for their employees? Or that governments enforce their own rules when regulating banks? > > It appears to me that this is only logical > > if one assumes a priori that government regulation is bad (as happened > in > > the 80s) and then immunize one's arguments from virtually any empirical > > falsification by appeal to complications. > > LOL! You're hilarious. Yes, assuming that government regulation is > good and will save us has never been falsified, since we had that > stretch of 10 years when government regulation prevented all crises, > yes, that was in, uh, wait, when was that again? No, because we had a government that had X regulations and we had few problems of this type for most of the last 75 years. There have been two exceptions to this, and really bad things happened when both exceptions occurred. Both times, the administration in power agreed with you explicitly on the inherent evil government regulations....and reduced them whenever possible. Then bad things happened. If you reduce A and B increases, I'd say that A and B anti-correlate. Correlation doesn't prove causality, but anti-correlation is a counter-indicator for causality. And, when correlations do exist, it's the first place to look for causality. Well, at least that's what I was taught in grad. school. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
